Summary of Emmanuel Eke V. The State LRLR VOL 5 PART 54 2011

EMMANUEL EKE V. THE STATE

LRLR VOL 5 PART 54 2011

RATIO

    MAHMUD MOHAMMED JSC
    JOHN AFOLABI FABIYI JSC
    OLUFUNLOLA OYELOLA ADEKEYE JSC
    SULEIMAN GALADIMA JSC
    BODE RHODES-VIVOUR JSC




FACTS

The appellant was arraigned before the court on a charge that the appellant and one other on or about the 10th day of February, 1995 at Kurmin Iya Village, Kaduna State, committed armed robbery to wit robbed one Mrs. Talatu Silas and Felicia Moses of about the sum of Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Naira (N 5,970) at gun point (i.e. by pointing gun at them) and thereby committed an offence of armed robbery contrary to section 1 (2) (a) of the Robbery and Firearms (Special Provisions) Act CAP 398, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990 and triable by the Robbery and Firearms Tribunal of Kaduna State.

The appellant pleaded not guilty to the above charge read to him on 27th June, 1996. To prove its case, the prosecution called five witnesses and tendered five exhibits. The appellant thereafter testified in his defense in a bid to extricate himself. In its judgment handed out on 24th October, 1997, the Tribunal convicted the appellant for the offence of robbery simpliciter instead of the offence of armed robbery for which he was arraigned and sentenced him to twenty-one (21) years imprisonment. The appellant appealed to the court above which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Tribunal on 15th December, 2009. In the exercise of his constitutional right, the appellant has further appealed to this court.

The supreme court held that the appeal lacks merit and hereby dismissed  the case of the appellant.

PRINCIPLES DECIDED IN THE CASE

    Whether the Court of Appeal was right in affirming the decision of the trial court having regard to the totality of evidence adduced before the tribunal.
     Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in its decision that the failure by the trial court to conduct a trial within trial before admissibility of the confessional statement did not occasion a miscarriage of Justice.
     Whether the procedure of trial within trial on the issue of voluntariness before the admissibility of a confessional statement is unconstitutional and unobtainable in the absence of jury system of trial and should be abolished.




Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post